Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
There are as many misses as hits, but ultimately, it finds humor in the foibles of human behavior, and it's a welcome return to the roots of a genre that should depend on surprises.
Ebert & Roeper:
The chemistry between the three actresses is why I'm recommending this film.
New York Times:
McKay seems embarrassed by his own invention and tries to rush through the intermediary passages, apparently hoping that the audience will not notice the glaring triteness of the plot device he has put in service.
It should have been delicious; instead, it's like lukewarm tea -- neither hot nor cold, and definitely unappealing.
[MacDowell] ventures beyond her abilities several times here and reveals how bad an actress she is.
For women in the midst of otherwise v. successful adult lives, these ladies are awfully stupid about love, sex, friendship, menstrual cycles, and the attributes of a good boyfriend or a bad script.
New York Observer:
Oh God, how I love the old chick flicks! And some of the new ones, like Crush, aren't that bad either.
The movie does its best to work us over, with second helpings of love, romance, tragedy, false dawns, real dawns, comic relief, two separate crises during marriage ceremonies, and the lush scenery of the Cotswolds.
Happy! Sad! And more hoary old cliches about what women want to see. I've never been this insulted by a chick flick.
San Francisco Chronicle:
Ostensibly celebrates middle-aged girl power, even as it presents friendship between women as pathetic, dysfunctional and destructive.
While McKay's debut feature is witty, weepy and easy on the eyes, it never lets the obligation to entertain interfere with the messy flow of human responses.
Crush could be the worst film a man has made about women since Valley of the Dolls.